Pattern Recognition in Games

[howandwhy99]

What role does pattern recognition play in your games?

The narrative versus gamist modes of play are each pretty popular for game play, both in and out of the RPGs. I take the first as a description of games as a storytelling enterprise with accompanying vocabulary from literature. The other I see as a pattern recognition enterprise with terminology from mathematics and its game theory.

Emotionally evocative storytelling gets a lot of play at the moment, but what about the other? Collectible card games are pretty sparse in story elements, but I would never say they are unpopular or not fun given the amount of players and, simply, sales. That puzzle solving or pattern recognition aspect of manipulating resources to best achieve victory is pretty addictive to say the least.

What are your experiences?

 

[Croesus]

What role does pattern recognition play in your games?

I'm uncertain what you mean be pattern recognition, but here's what your question brings to mind.

Many years ago when gaming with my high school group, the party was exploring a room. One player opened a door and the GM said "You see a glint of light...", at which point the player immediately cried out "I close my eyes and slam the door shut!"

The player somehow figured out in a fraction of a second that it was a mirror of some sort, and suspected it was a mirror of life trapping. He was correct and avoided the trap.

I attempted the same thing about 20 years later, with a mixed group of experienced and new roleplayers. They only figured it out after several party members disappeared into the mirror, and even then, I'm not sure they really knew what was happening (though they did eventually figure out that breaking the mirror would release their friends).

Huge difference in outcomes, all because one player knew what a mirror of life trapping was and somehow pieced the clues together in record time.

 

[jonesy]

The other I see as a pattern recognition enterprise with terminology from mathematics and its game theory.

Is that a roundabout way of saying CharOp?

My group has a tendency to veer towards apophenia. I give them a random NPC with no background, they see someone with purpose in her step.

 

[AeroDm]

I'm also not 100% on your question, but I think the jist is about whether people are motivated by "story" or "mathematical probability since they know the numbers and the system."

I think attempting to decouple these two things is a mistake and punishing players for being unable to decouple is an even bigger mistake. In the "real world" there are infinite indications to give you more evidence but in the game world you can only see through the DM's lens. Players should not be punished for the biased visions that results from looking through a biased glass.

By allowing players to be motivated by the number and system, you actually encourage "realistic" actions within the system since people naturally optimize. As long as you trust your system, the actions its encourages should be similarly sound.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Is that a roundabout way of saying CharOp?

I think the system would play a large role in determining if that could even be a factor.

Using OD&D as an example about the only optimizing one can do is choose a class based on which randomly rolled attribute was highest.

 

[jonesy]

I think the system would play a large role in determining if that could even be a factor.

Using OD&D as an example about the only optimizing one can do is choose a class based on which randomly rolled attribute was highest.

There's equipment. But you're right.

 

[howandwhy99]

There's equipment. But you're right.

Yeah, equipment was the big char-gen optimizer in earlier games. To an extent, so was defining one's abilities like how you cast your spells.



The overall thread question is open to interpretation. I was wondering how the game-related side of things crops up in people's own games.

I like Croesus' example. And apophenia may be considered all pattern recognition depending on your point of view.

 

[Janx]

I'm uncertain what you mean be pattern recognition, but here's what your question brings to mind.

Many years ago when gaming with my high school group, the party was exploring a room. One player opened a door and the GM said "You see a glint of light...", at which point the player immediately cried out "I close my eyes and slam the door shut!"

The player somehow figured out in a fraction of a second that it was a mirror of some sort, and suspected it was a mirror of life trapping. He was correct and avoided the trap.

I attempted the same thing about 20 years later, with a mixed group of experienced and new roleplayers. They only figured it out after several party members disappeared into the mirror, and even then, I'm not sure they really knew what was happening (though they did eventually figure out that breaking the mirror would release their friends).

Huge difference in outcomes, all because one player knew what a mirror of life trapping was and somehow pieced the clues together in record time.

I agree, the OP's point is unclear.

When I think of Pattern Recognition, it implies recognizing that which forms a pattern. A pattern being something that repeats.

Croseus's example, PC opens door, sees glint, avoids trap is NOT pattern recognition as I see it. The PC was familiar with the descriptive text or simply suspected the glint was something bad and slammed the door.

A real pattern recognition challenge would be to setup a complex recurring event, such that the PCs have a chance to discern the starting cause of the event, and thus predict and avoid the event.

Animal attacks during a full moon are such a pattern. The problem is, they are so well known, everybody immediately jumps to the conclusion, werewolf and are alert for any such threat.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Here is a simple example of pattern matching that is both gamist and narrative at the same time:

In most of my fantasy games, I use a finite set of monsters, divide them into factions, give each faction different goals, and off we go. Then I throw in regional or cultural clues for futher distinctions.

The party meets some orcs that seem open to negotiation, use certain equipment, perhaps employ certain tactics. Based on nothing more than similarities, the party guesses that the orcs are allied with the mage guild in the previous town.

Now, this may not be entirely accurate. Or it may be. But it is true that if the two groups aren't allied, they are at least sympatico. Or maybe they are rivals after the same thing. In any case, the pattern means something, because I set it up to mean something.

I'll typically have 10-15 broad factions like this. About two thirds of all "monsters" will be placed into such a faction. The rest are left unaligned for color and to throw the occasional monkey wrench into the works.

When we start a new campaign, I start over from scratch. The players know I do this. Part of the fun is recognizing which patterns apply, and what they mean. As the campaign progresses, some fairly subtle guesses can be employed.

 

[AeroDm]

When we start a new campaign, I start over from scratch. The players know I do this. Part of the fun is recognizing which patterns apply, and what they mean. As the campaign progresses, some fairly subtle guesses can be employed.

This is similar to where I was heading in my comment above but better described. Basically, players are piggy-backing on real world clues to solve in-game puzzles. On some level this is gamist, but part of the reason that they need to rely on real world clues is that the players don't have as much information as their characters would. In the game world, there would be millions of tiny clues that add up to help them develop a theory. In the real world, they have only a handful of clues and so must rely on a few really big ones (i.e. metagame).

Sometimes this type of metagaming is problematic. Other times, like in Crazy Jerome's scenario, I think it should be found flattering.